IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT); DIST.__________; XXXXXXX COURTS, DELHI.

C. SUIT (COMM.) NO. _____ OF 20___.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

M/S. XXXXXXXXXXXX PVT. LTD.                 : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXXXXX  AUTO PARTS (INDIA)               : DEFENDANT

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFENDANT (DW1)

Affidavit of Sh.XXXXXXXXXXX , Proprietor of M/s. XXXXXX Auto Parts (India), having office at___________________________, Delhi-1100__, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1.                  That I am the Proprietor of the Defendant Company in the above case and am thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances, pursuant to the information provided to me, thereof and am competent to swear this affidavit.

2.                  I state that the Deponent has a strong case in his favour and suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff’s suit is based on false, frivolous facts and documents and barred by limitation as the present filed in 2024 and last transaction between the parties was made in the month of May, 2019 which is admitted by the plaintiff in his plaint. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

3.                  I further state that the Plaintiff has not even annexed any certificate or bank stamp over the statements of Account as maintained by the Plaintiff and as such the same are forged and fabricated documents as no documents to prove the authenticity of the documents as filed by the Plaintiff has put forth on record.

4.                  I further state that the plaintiff has put forth certain document i.e. bill / invoice and consignment note and Deponent looks carefully and examine the said documents which were not legible and handwritten, it can be seen that these are tempered / forged one and there is no sign / stamp of the Deponent which shows that the Deponent was ever acknowledged the said invoice / consignment note, coupled with the facts that that there is no acknowledge of the Deponent in receiving of the said material of goods as stands mentioned in fabricated invoice. That the Deponent squarely submits before this Hon’ble Court that the Deponent did receive the goods of Rs.11.46 Lakhs only, but the goods as mentioned of Rs. 47 Lakhs and bill / invoice in this respect are not as to what was received or sent by the plaintiff.

5.                  I further state that the said material supplied by the plaintiff to the Deponent in Feb. 2019 were of inferior quality, the fact which was also known to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s price was highly exaggerated as per market value and Deponent requested the plaintiff to take back the said goods but plaintiff urged difficulty to Deponent pertaining to inferior quality and spoilage of goods and return freight incurred to take back the goods.

6.                  I further state that the Deponent had only ordered the goods to the plaintiff which is amounting to Rs. 31,955/- and same was paid by the Deponent which is admitted by the plaintiff in his plaint, but the plaintiff in order to cheat the Deponent created false and fabricated invoice of Rs.11.46 Lakhs against the said order and approached this Hon’ble Court for wrongful gain. The value of the said material higher than the market value and wrongly claimed the exaggerated amount and the said figure is sham, fictitious, bogus and imaginary. By doing legally justifiable act, the plaintiff cannot be said to be suffering anything which may be for commercial purposes.

7.                  I further state that the Deponent repeatedly requested to the plaintiff to return the remaining defective goods, but the plaintiff deliberately kept avoiding the request and time reasons for not paying proper attentions to causes of inferior quality of goods. Because of this Deponent had to suffer a lot of damages in terms of money loss.

8.                  I further state that the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable in as much as the fact remains that the claim put forth by the Plaintiff seeking relief for Recovery of an Alleged Amount is without any legal, binding and subsisting cause of action. Since the plaintiff is not entitled to any equitable relief from this Hon'ble Court and is guilty of their own conduct whereby the Plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from this Hon'ble Court and thus there is no swing of equity which can be claimed by the Plaintiff as a matter of right or otherwise.

9.                  I further state that the falsity of the plaintiff claims for recovery of Rs.11,46,993/- in the present suit is writ large by the fact itself that the plaintiff has sent the legal notice to the Deponent through his counsel in which he had claimed the different amount which clearly shows that the plaintiff has not maintained any book of accounts and through the present suit the plaintiff is twisting the real facts.

10.             I further state that failing to disclose material facts, the Plaintiff has made themselves liable to have this suit rejected at the very inception so as to avoid the procedure of litigation. Further, the present suit as framed and filed is a gross abuse and misuse of process of law and legal machinery and has been filed with the sole intention to harass the Deponent.

11.             I further state that the captioned proceedings instituted by the Plaintiff projects and frescoes a scenario which is not only disturbing but also has the potentiality to create a stir compelling one to ponder in a perturbed state how some unprincipled and deviant people can ingeniously and innovatively design in a nonchalant manner to knock at the doors of the courts, as if, it is a laboratory where multifarious experiments can take place and such skillful persons can adroitly abuse the process of the courts at their own will and desire by painting a canvas of agony by assiduous assertions made in the pleadings though the real intention to harass the opposite party, without any remote remorse, with the inventive design primarily to harass the said Deponent.

12.             I further state that the Hon’ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the present suit as the plaintiff has made a wrong jurisdiction on relying on the rent agreement which is executed on 7^th January 2022 for 11 months i.e. till 7^th December 2022 and the same agreement was expired on 7^th December 2022 but the plaintiff has filed the present suit in year 2024 which clearly shows that the plaintiff is making a mockery of law and filed a false case against the Deponent.

13.             I further state that the Deponent always make the payment of the due amount and the Deponent clear their all outstanding towards goods supplied to the Deponent by the Plaintiff. I further state that the present suit is barred by limitation and filed after expiry of statutory period of three years limitation.

14.             I hereby state that whatever is stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

          Verified at Delhi on this _____, day of December, 20___ that the contents of paras 1 to 14 of my above evidence affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT